Monthly Archives: November 2004

Stem Cell Therapy — a New Approach

Korea continues to be a source of amazing
developments
in the field of regenerative medicine:

A
South Korean woman paralyzed for 20 years is walking again after scientists
say they repaired her damaged spine using stem cells derived from umbilical
cord blood.

Hwang Mi-Soon, 37, had been bedridden since damaging her back in an accident
two decades ago.

Stem cells derived from umbilical cord blood are not completely undifferentiated
like embryonic stem cells. They are described as being "multipotent,"
meaning that they "are capable of forming a limited number of specialised
cell types." So these cells may not have quite the potential of embryonic
stem cells, but they have apparently already made good on one of the more outrageous
promises
made on behalf of embryonic stem cells. And we learned
not too long ago that expectant mothers have been receiving this kind of stem
cell therapy all along. Perhaps most importantly, we can start harvesting and
doing work with these cells now, and skip the tiresome
debate
.

After all, there is an abundant supply of umbilical cord blood, and no embryo
or fetus need be harmed in collecting it. One of the sticking points in the
current debate is that federal funds may be used for research on only a few
lines of embryonic stem cells. But even if these restrictions were removed,
there will still be vastly more potential cell lines to be derived from umbilical
cord blood than there would ever be from rejected embryos. Every pregnant woman
is potentially a source.

The Tiresome Argument

Ever since the old site
crashed and burned, we’ve been periodically re-running entries from there under
the brand name "Speculist Classic.&quot When an old entry can be
brought over to the new site in the context of the current discussion, so much
the better. Such was the case yesterday when I was writing about an interesting
new approach
to stem cell research. This older post seemed to go along with that story nicely,
providing an overview of what I refer to as the "tiresome argument"
in the new post.

So, for those wondering why I was re-running such an old post, there’s you’re
reason. Thanks for the link, Glenn.

UPDATE: Rand
Simberg
has some interesting, related thoughts. Also, check out this interesting essay by Amba.

UPDATE II: Daniel
Moore
takes issue with my use of the terms "clone" and "luddite,"
and grasps for a label to stick on "philosophical luddites" such as
myself who espouse:

idiotic assumptions that anyone who has any sort of misgivings about cloning
and stem cells is a luddite

I won’t go into the definition of "clone," as it is being thoroughly
discussed in the comments to Moore’s entry. However, I will take issue with
the above characterization. I don’t think that people who have misgivings about
these matters are luddites; I have a fair share of my own misgivings. Kass has
earned the title because of his consistent
philosophical opposition
to life extension, and his apparent
inclination
to see that opposition written into law.

Also, he has little quirks like being offended at the sight of people eating
ice cream in public
. But that doesn’t make him a luddite. I think the appropriate
term there is "buzzkill."

My Little Bud Grows Up

The Longevity Meme reports on a remarkable achievement by researchers in Korea:

The Next Step in Therapeutic Cloning (Thursday February 12 2004)

As reported by Wired (and in numerous other places), Korean researchers have accomplished the next successful step in therapeutic cloning and stem cell medicine: reliably extracting stem cells from cloned human embryos. As the Wired article says, “a Korean woman now has a set of cells that could one day replace any damaged or diseased cell in her body with little worry of rejection, if researchers can get stem cells to work therapeutically.” The scientists have even managed to create a new stem cell line from this work, which is very good news, given the limited number of lines currently available. A New York Times article provides a good introduction to the medical significance of this advance.

Leon Kass, the Luddite General of the United States, was quick to comment:

‘The age of human cloning has apparently arrived: today, cloned blastocysts for research, tomorrow cloned blastocysts for babymaking,’ he wrote in an e-mail message. ‘In my opinion, and that of the majority of the Council, the only way to prevent this from happening here is for Congress to enact a comprehensive ban or moratorium on all human cloning.’

You know, I’m not really for or against reproductive cloning. There are rational arguments as to why it’s an okay idea, and rational arguments as to why it would cause problems. But this superstituous dread with which Kass approaches the subject is truly astounding to me. He is apparently not upset that a blastocyst was killed (not in this quote, anyway). If that were what bothered him, at least his position would be consistent with the Catholics:

Richard M. Doerflinger, deputy director for pro-life activities at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, said, ‘This is a move toward creating new human lives solely to destroy them in research.’ He termed cloning ‘the ultimate way of treating life as an object, as an instrument to an end.’

I can see the logic of that, even if I don’t agree with it. The Catholics define humanity all the way down to the freshly fertilized zygote. A blastocyst is therefore “human” and it’s wrong to use a “human” for research, not to mention killing it. Agree with it or disagree with it, at least that’s a coherent position.

Contrast it with Kass’ position. His great fear is that someday somebody is going to create one of these blastocysts and not kill it. And yet I bet he would describe himself as being “pro-life.”

Go figure.

They're called Fab Labs…

…not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Wired magazine has published in its December issue a lengthy story on fabrication laboratories, or “fab labs.” (Hat tip to KurzweilAI)

A fab lab is a miniature factory for the digital age. The latest version consists of three Linux PCs, a laser cutter, a combination 3-D scanner and drill, a numerically controlled X-Acto knife, and a handful of RISC chips. Set it up, turn it on, and you can crank out not only solid objects like eyeglass frames and action figures but, thanks to Gershenfeld’s research, electronic devices like radios and computers, too.

Go and read the whole thing, but come back and read my post on fabricators originally published March 31 of this year:

Non Nano News

One of the “Drexlerian fantasies” that we who dwell in our parent’s basements hold dear is the “nanofactory.”

The nanofactory is imagined as an appliance, maybe as small as a Mr. Coffee, maybe as big as a refrigerator, that manufactures whatever is desired from individual molecules up. This has been called the ultimate technology. With the development of the nanofactory the only cost of material possessions would be the energy it takes to manufacture them and the information to build it (the cost of raw matter would be negligible). Presumably you would shop online, buy a design, download it, and then have your home factory make it for you. The energy cost would be reflected on your electric bill.

There are new developments constantly in the nanotech industry (here’s a good source for staying current). But even we optimists understand that we are presently a long way from developing self-replicating nanoassemblers – the basic component of a nanofactory.

Personally I see no reason why automatic home factories need wait for the development of exotic nanotech.

Imagine a computer driven factory that uses raw materials (shredded plastic, wood pulp, various metals, silicon) to assemble whatever product you require using downloaded designs. The cost of the raw materials would be small. In fact, much of our trash could be recycled for these materials. The value of material possessions would be reduced to the cost of the raw materials, electricity, and the information to assemble it. In fact, you would have nearly all of the benefits of a nanofactory and few of the dangers. There would be no possibility of gray goo or homemade plagues with such a factory.

Contour-Crafting-House.jpeg

The technology I’m talking about is not decades away. Commercial forms of this technology are being tested now. On the large scale Engineer Behrokh Khoshnevis is perfecting his “Contour Crafting” process that will automatically construct an entire home directly from a computer plan.

Degussa AG, one of the world’s largest manufacturers and suppliers of construction materials, will collaborate in the development of a USC computer-controlled system designed to automatically “print out” full-size houses in hours…

Khoshnevis believes his system will be able to construct a full-size, 2,000- square-foot house with utilities embedded in 24 hours. He now has a working machine that can build full-scale walls and is hoping to actually construct his first house in early 2005.

Contour Crafting uses crane- or gantry-mounted nozzles, from which building material – concrete, in the prototype now operating in his laboratory – comes out at a constant rate.

Moveable trowels surrounding the nozzle mold the concrete into the desired shape, as the nozzle moves over the work…

Khoshnevis is now perfecting a system to mix such materials continuously in industrial quantities right at the Contour Crafting nozzle, “the way a spider makes silk to build a web.”

-Via Futurepundit.

NewScientist has more:

Khoshnevis’s prototype robot hangs from a movable overhead gantry, like the cranes at ship container depots. Khoshnevis speculates that they could also be ground-based, running along rails and able to build several houses at one time. But it would be more difficult to create autonomous wheeled robots that have sufficient accuracy and precision.

The first house will be built in 2005. If the technology is successful the robot could enable new designs that cannot be built using conventional methods, for example involving complex curving walls.

On the small scale, engineers at the University of California in Berkeley are developing technology to “print” in one process an entire electronic application – external plastic case and moving parts included.

The trick is to print layer upon layer of conducting and semiconducting polymers in such a way that the circuitry the device requires is built up as part of the bodywork.

When the technique is perfected, devices such as light bulbs, radios, remote controls, mobile phones and toys will be spat out as individual fully functional systems without expensive and labour-intensive production on an assembly line.

Three-dimensional printers are already valuable tools for making prototypes of newly designed products. They deposit layers made from droplets of smart polymers, which gradually build up into 3D shapes. Such printing techniques have become so sophisticated it is now possible to print working prototypes with mechanical parts that move as they would in the final product.

But Berkeley’s crucial addition to this art is to allow the electronics to be included in the printed device, rather than being added at great cost later on.

The first automatic factory in the home will probably be simple – it could assemble all-plastic goods. This would be sufficient for many toys and kitchen utensils. Similar devices have been in use commercially for some time now.

Three-dimensional printers are already valuable tools for making prototypes of newly designed products. They deposit layers made from droplets of smart polymers, which gradually build up into 3D shapes. Such printing techniques have become so sophisticated it is now possible to print working prototypes with mechanical parts that move as they would in the final product.

Automatic assemblers that could use different materials would follow. Assemblers for electronics would come later.

This development will bring vast new wealth to consumers and will present the patent holders for commodity goods with the same peer-to-peer challenges that the RIAA has faced.

Posted by Stephen Gordon at March 31, 2004 10:38 PM


Comments to the original post:

I could see this type of thing developing on a neighborhood basis first, much like a Kinkos. You’d choose a design off the internet, perhaps customize it, then direct it to your neighborhood fab center, where you could pick it up at your leisure. Eventually the technology would evolve to the point where in-house fab would be the norm.

Posted by: David Young at April 1, 2004 11:17 AM


David:

I agree that this technology will be developed for commercial uses first. Only later as prices come down would I expect to see this in homes.

A Kinko’s fabricator would be used for entirely different purposes than a home fabricator. For example, if I need a tooth bush and a toilet plunger I’m not going to wait at Kinkos while they fabricate these items. I’d go next door to the Dollar General (who would probably be fabricating them regionally instead of importing).

I might use a home fabricator for such items. I could download a design for these two items, load it into my fabricator and let it go to work.

A Kinkos fabricator would be used for specialty projects – perhaps to make a model to be used in a business presentation. It would not be used for commodity items.

Posted by: Stephen Gordon at April 1, 2004 12:47 PM


As soon as you can use a fabricator to build another fabricator, things will start getting really interesting.

Posted by: Ken at April 2, 2004 01:13 PM

From 0 to III in Less Than 100,000 Years

death-opener.jpg
The December 2004 issue of Discover Magazine has an intriguing article: ”How to Survive the End of the Universe (In 7 Steps)”. Although the 7 Steps to Leaving the Cosmos were amazing, it was this paragraph that kept me ruminating after I finished reading the article:

A Type I civilization is planetary: it is able to exploit all the energy falling on its planet from the sun (1016 watts). This civilization could derive limitless hydrogen from its oceans, perhaps harness the power of volcanoes, and maybe even control the weather. A Type II civilization could control the energy output of the sun itself: (1028 watts), or 10 billion times the power of a Type I civilization. Deriving energy from solar flares and antimatter, Type IIs would be effectively immune from ice ages, meteors, even supernovas. A Type III civilization would be 10 billion times more powerful still, capable of controlling and consuming the energy of an entire galaxy (1036 watts). Type IIIs would derive energy by extracting it from billions of stars and black holes. A Type III civilization would be able to manipulate the Plank energy (1019 billion electron volts), the energy at which space-time becomes foamy and unstable, frothing with tiny wormholes and bubble-sized universes. The aliens in Independence Day would qualify as a Type III civilization.

By contrast, ours would qualify as a Type 0 civilization, deriving its energy from dead plants—oil and coal.

What would it take for us to evolve from 0 to III? The article proposes this: growing at 1 or 2 percent per year, we could become Type I in a hundred years, Type II in a few thousand years, and Type III in a hundred thousand to a million years.

The Speculists disagree on at least two counts. Stephen Gordon points out that the aliens Independence Day were interested in strip-mining the Earth for its resources – a Type I interest. Had they even been a type II civilization they might have started building a Dyson Sphere around our Sun – a disconcerting thought.

And Phil suggests that the time frame posed for us to become a Type II civilization—an incremental arithmetic progression—doesn’t take into account the exponential changes we’re experiencing as we approach the Singularity.

Even Future Hi, who understands the Singularity, seems to have missed class on the day they taught exponents:

Once we’ve passed the singularity point (Type I), then the rapid rise in intelligence combined with advanced molecular nanotechnology, would be all that is necessary to engage in Stellar lifting or Dyson sphere construction.

.. “the time frame from a type 1 to a type II is small enough that from a cosmic perspective it’s a blink in the eye. The time to go from a type II to a type III isn’t much longer, perhaps 500,000 years, assuming light speed remains a barrier.

As we rapidly enter this ever-decreasing bottleneck, we should soon find out if we’re going to make it to Type I. Utopia or Oblivion, there is no third way. If we can figure out how to survive the coming technological singularity, then all the problems that have plagued our planet up to this point will have been solved. Idealistic dogma, hatred, greed, poverty, war, selfishness will have all been solved, otherwise how would we make it? Once we passed this level I bottleneck, then it will be relatively smooth sailing from there… onward to Type II and III, or at least that’s the assumption.”

Which begs the issue—can the Singularity come at all if we’re still mired in our Type I issues? Might we abort it or turn it into a catastrophe?

We can’t depend on exponential advances in technology to solve our problems. Do we need to approach a spiritual Singularity before the technological one can arrive? Or is it a holistic event, for which it is impossible to separate the physical, technological and spiritual dimensions?

From 0 to III in Less Than 100,000 Years

death-opener.jpg
The December 2004 issue of Discover Magazine has an intriguing article: ”How to Survive the End of the Universe (In 7 Steps)”. Although the 7 Steps to Leaving the Cosmos were amazing, it was this paragraph that kept me ruminating after I finished reading the article:

A Type I civilization is planetary: it is able to exploit all the energy falling on its planet from the sun (1016 watts). This civilization could derive limitless hydrogen from its oceans, perhaps harness the power of volcanoes, and maybe even control the weather. A Type II civilization could control the energy output of the sun itself: (1028 watts), or 10 billion times the power of a Type I civilization. Deriving energy from solar flares and antimatter, Type IIs would be effectively immune from ice ages, meteors, even supernovas. A Type III civilization would be 10 billion times more powerful still, capable of controlling and consuming the energy of an entire galaxy (1036 watts). Type IIIs would derive energy by extracting it from billions of stars and black holes. A Type III civilization would be able to manipulate the Plank energy (1019 billion electron volts), the energy at which space-time becomes foamy and unstable, frothing with tiny wormholes and bubble-sized universes. The aliens in Independence Day would qualify as a Type III civilization.

By contrast, ours would qualify as a Type 0 civilization, deriving its energy from dead plants—oil and coal.

What would it take for us to evolve from 0 to III? The article proposes this: growing at 1 or 2 percent per year, we could become Type I in a hundred years, Type II in a few thousand years, and Type III in a hundred thousand to a million years.

The Speculists disagree on at least two counts Stephen Gordon points out that the aliens Independence Day were interested in was strip-mining the Earth for its resources – a Type I interest. Had they even been a type II civilization they might have started building a Dyson Sphere around our Sun – a disconcerting thought.

And Phil suggests that the time frame posed for us to become a Type II civilization—an incremental arithmetic progression—doesn’t take into account the exponential changes we’re experiencing as we approach the Singularity.

Even Future Hi, who understands the Singularity, seems to have missed class on the day they taught exponents:

Once we’ve passed the singularity point (Type I), then the rapid rise in intelligence combined with advanced molecular nanotechnology, would be all that is necessary to engage in Stellar lifting or Dyson sphere construction.

.. “the time frame from a type 1 to a type II is small enough that from a cosmic perspective it’s a blink in the eye. The time to go from a type II to a type III isn’t much longer, perhaps 500,000 years, assuming light speed remains a barrier.

As we rapidly enter this ever-decreasing bottleneck, we should soon find out if we’re going to make it to Type I. Utopia or Oblivion, there is no third way. If we can figure out how to survive the coming technological singularity, then all the problems that have plagued our planet up to this point will have been solved. Idealistic dogma, hatred, greed, poverty, war, selfishness will have all been solved, otherwise how would we make it? Once we passed this level I bottleneck, then it will be relatively smooth sailing from there… onward to Type II and III, or at least that’s the assumption.”

Which begs the issue—can the Singularity come at all if we’re still mired in our Type I issues? Might we abort it or turn it into a catastrophe?

We can’t depend on exponential advances in technology to solve our problems. Do we need to approach a spiritual Singularity before the technological one can arrive? Or is it a holistic event, for which it is impossible to separate the physical, technological and spiritual dimensions?

Happy Thanksgiving

I won’t be blogging over the next several days. Best wishes to all for a safe and happy Thanksgiving weekend.

Energy Warfare

Ever since Steven Den Beste retired his
word processor (actually it appears he’s thrown it out the window, run over
it with his car, and set it on fire), I’ve missed the sort of technical and
knowledgeable blogging that engineers are often good at.

“Engineer Poet” is that kind of writer and so I’m glad to have him guest-blogging
today at The Speculist.

Engineer Poet regularly blogs at Ergosphere.

-Stephen Gordon

Foreword:  This piece is late for its purpose.  I began writing
it in late August and had a first draft in the space of a few days, then I set
it down for a 3-week hiatus.  When I came back to it I had great difficulty
getting to the next stage of refinement, and it barely changed through the end
of September and the whole month of October.

Ideally this piece should have been done no later than mid-October. 
Energy issues are crucially important to the USA, and anything which might have
injected some reality-based discussion into the pre-election politics could
not have done anything but good.  That opportunity is now gone, but I’m
hoping it can still be of benefit.


We’ve 2 got
a problem.  A BIG problem.  It’s a problem as big as the biggest monster
SUV, and as old as the Model T.  It’s our dependence on oil.  Not
only are the costs of oil depressing our economy
3
, the money we’re paying is feeding a
movement which is inimical to the United States and western civilization in
general.  Even without that, we have still not fully dealt with the air
pollution produced when the oil is consumed.

It’s obvious to a great many people that we are already involved in a war. 
Why not take the war beyond the spheres of military action and financial interdiction
and attack the problem at its source, and (since You Cannot Do Just One Thing)
a few others besides?


Specifying the problems and goals

Suppose that the US decided to take the following as national security issues:

  • Dependence on foreign (particularly middle-east) oil and vulnerability to
    price shocks.
  • Decreasing availability of N. American natural gas and price spikes.
  • Air pollution and its consequent health effects.
  • Increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

The goals:  Reduce the need for oil and gas to moderate prices and cut
the influence of their price on our economy, reduce pollution and cut atmospheric
CO2 contributions.  (Whether or not the last is necessary or even desirable
is the subject of much debate, but the scientists are the most reliable guides
we have and they don’t seem to have changed their recommendations yet.)

Further suppose that the US went on a war footing with regard to these issues,
devoting about $100 billion per year initially.  What would it buy, and
how fast could we see change?

Internet Time Travel

The
Wayback Machine, a massive
archive of the worldwide web, enables users to enter a data and go "back
in time" to view web pages from the past. GeekPress
reports that the Wayback Machine’s output has recently been ruled admissable
as evidence
.

This should give us all pause about what we publish on the web. We can edit
entries, we can remove files, but we can’t change the past. And we can’t count
on time to cover our tracks. So anything we put up on the Web, we better be
comfortable with. Forever.

Modular Robots

Via
Kurzweil
AI
, check out this New
Scientist
report on a new modular, shape-shifting robot:

A shape-shifting robot comprised of many independently moving components
has been demonstrated walking, rolling and slithering for the first time.

The prototype robot – called ATRON – demonstrated its various metamorphoses
in Tokyo on Wednesday. For example, reconfiguring its many individual modules
allows the robot to change its mode of locomotion on command.

As you can see in the photo, the modules are described as being "roughly
spherical"
in shape. Here we have a primitive, macro-scale implementation of the modular
nanobot.
All we have to do now is make these robots a little smarter and a little more
mobile (they need to be able to fly and swim as well as roll around on the ground)
reduce their size by a factor of a few million, and figure out a way to start
producing trillions of them. Then the fun really begins.

Stillness Part V, Chapter 53

Judy was in the kitchen supervising the third attempt at brewing a pot of coffee.

“I don’t see how this can be so hard,” commented Bettina, who was sitting at the kitchen table, stirring sugar and milk into a cup from the previous attempt. “We’ve seen it done so many times.”

“I guess we were never paying attention,” said Judy.

Bettina took a sip and winced.

“What does it prove for you to taste it,” asked Judy. “You never drink coffee. How would you know if it was right?”

Bettina shrugged.

“Even if I don’t like it, I can still tell when it’s not right.”

Judy knew that was true. The first pot had been too black. It didn’t look or smell like the coffee that — Judy caught herself. She was tired of these memories that couldn’t be completed because they were connected to someone who was no longer there. She casually picked up the mug Bettina had been drinking from and dumped its contents in the sink. Bettina didn’t object.

“Lucinda,” said Judy, “how is it that we can remember that there was coffee once but we can’t remember who made it? Or drank it?”

The younger girl, who sat across the table from Bettina, shook her head.